Networks contest results of DVR viewership study

Last year, TV networks proudly brandished the results of Arbitron research …

Advertisers and TV networks live on opposite sides of a mutually beneficial border. For years, the location of that border remained relatively well-defined, as viewership quantity and demographics were the primary factors which determined what advertisers should pay for their spots. As the digital video recorder (DVR) entrenches itself in audience viewing habits, that border has becomecontested. In a nutshell, advertisers would prefer not to count DVR viewership at all, since DVR users tend to skip commercials with abandon. On the other side, networks have argued that DVR actually leads to more television viewing, which makes up for some—if not all—of the audience "lost" to the fast-forward button.

While the real truth of the matter probably lies somewhere between the advertiser and the network positions, a new study released by an independent media research organization muddies the waters by seeming to contradict similar data released by the networks last year.

According to Mediamark Research, Inc., adults with DVRs are 23 percent less likely to be considered "heavy" TV viewers than the population taken as a whole. For the purposes of the study, heavy viewers are defined as the top quintile, as determined by number of half-hours watched per week. According to an Arbitron study the networks released last November, viewers with DVRs spend 12 percent more time watching TV than those who lack the devices.

Part of the discrepancy lies in the different methodologies used to collect the data. In the Mediamark study, more than 26,000 viewers were interviewed over a 14-month period regarding their media consumption habits. A spokesman from CBS was quick to point out that this data could be skewed, as many viewers underestimate their own habits. However, he gave no explanation as to why DVR users would underestimate any differently than DVR non-users.

For their part, the networks prefer to count the Arbitron results as more definitive. That study only polled 2,000 users, yet was tracked by machine, which can be considered more reliable than viewer interviews. Even so, the Arbitron poll only took place in one market (Houston), which leaves some room for doubt as to whether its conclusions can be applied to the US as a whole.

All is not doom and gloom for the networks, however. For one thing, the Mediamark study showed that DVR owners tend to be more upscale than their counterparts, with 17.1 percent having an average household income over US$150,000, compared to only 8 percent in the general population. That makes DVR owners a more desirable target for advertisers, and leads directly to what is likely to be the network fall-back position, should the Mediamark research be corroborated.

In any event, networks aren't going to let that advertiser revenue go without a fight. Until this whole technology shift shakes out and both sides find some common ground they can agree upon, we can probably expect to see network coffers remain filled through the ever-expanding use of product placement, along with additional incentives to convince viewers to stop and smell the commercials.